Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumershttps://www.ftc.gov/feeds/press-release.xml
enFTC Will Reschedule Roundtable with State Attorneys Generalhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/03/ftc-will-reschedule-roundtable-state-attorneys-general
<p>The Federal Trade Commission is rescheduling a Roundtable with the State Attorneys General, which originally had been planned for March 25 as part of the agency’s <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection">Hearings Initiative</a></em>, due to logistical issues. A new date and further details for the session will be announced as soon as they become available.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy">develops policy initiatives</a> on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1507850FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Continue with Discussion of Competition and Consumer Protection in Broadband Marketshttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/03/ftc-hearings-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td valign="top"><strong>What:</strong></td><td valign="top">The Federal Trade Commission will host the 10th session of its <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection">Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century</a>, which will examine competition and consumer protection in broadband markets.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><strong>When:</strong></td><td valign="top">Wednesday, March 20, 2019, 9:00 a.m. – 5:45 p.m.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><strong>Where:</strong></td><td valign="top">Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC 20024<br />(Note: This venue is accessible from the L’Enfant Plaza Metro Station)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><strong>Who:</strong></td><td valign="top">The hearing will begin with introductory remarks by Federal Trade Commission General Counsel Alden Abbott, followed by a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-10-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">distinguished set of panelists</a>.</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><strong>Webcast:</strong></td><td align="top">The hearing was webcast. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-10-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">Archival video will be available on the event page.</a></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><strong>Twitter:</strong></td><td valign="top">The hearing will be tweeted live from the FTC’s Twitter page (@FTC) using <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=%23FTCHearings&amp;src=typd">#FTCHearings</a>.</td></tr></tbody></table>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1507654FTC Submits Annual Budget Request, Performance Plan and Performance Report to Congresshttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/03/ftc-submits-annual-budget-request-performance-plan-performance
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has submitted to Congress its <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/fy-2020-congressional-budget-justification">Fiscal Year 2020 budget request</a> in support of the President’s FY 2020 budget for the federal government. The budget request also includes the FY 2020 Budget Overview Statement, Performance Plan for FY 2019 and FY 2020, and Performance Report for FY 2018, as required under the Government Performance and Results and Modernization Act of 2010.</p><p>The Commission vote to submit the budget request, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/fy-2019-20-performance-plan-fy-2018-performance-report">performance plan and performance report</a> to Congress was 5-0. (FTC File No P859900; the staff contact James Hale, Financial Management Office, 202-326-2385.)</p><p>The agency has also published an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/2018-2022-strategic-plan/strategic_plan_addendum.pdf">addendum to its strategic plan</a>. The addendum removes one performance measure from the plan and replaces it with two new performance measures. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/2018-2022-strategic-plan">FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan</a> is the FTC’s road map of goals, objectives and strategies that guides the agency’s work and serves as the basis for reporting the agency’s performance results.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">protect and educate consumers</a>. You can <a href="https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/">learn more about consumer topics</a> and file a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/complaint">consumer complaint online</a> or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357). Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p><p> </p>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1472822FTC Announces Agenda for the 11th Session of Its Hearings On Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Centuryhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/03/ftc-announces-agenda-11th-session-its-hearings-competition
<p>The Federal Trade Commission today announced the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-11-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century#newagenda">agenda for the 11th session</a> of its <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection">Hearings Initiative</a></em>, which will focus on the agency’s international work. The hearing, co-sponsored with the George Washington University Competition Law Center, will take place in Washington, D.C. on March 25-26, 2019 at the FTC’s headquarters building in room 432.</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies/joseph-j-simons">FTC Chairman Joe Simons</a> will deliver opening remarks, followed by a presentation by current George Washington University Law Professor and former FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic, which will highlight international developments in competition, consumer protection, and privacy laws, enforcement, and policies, and explore their impact on the FTC’s mission and work. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1454018/hearings-agenda-hq-march_day_1.pdf">first day</a> will also feature panels on enforcement cooperation, along with discussion of international engagement and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.</p><p>The hearing’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1454018/hearings-agenda-hq-march_day_2.pdf">second day</a> will begin with opening remarks by <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies/noah-joshua-phillips">Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips</a> and a presentation by Roger Alford, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies/christine-s-wilson">Commissioner Christine S. Wilson</a> will also deliver a presentation. The day will include panel discussions addressing international policy cooperation, international engagement, and the FTC’s role in a changing world.</p><p>The following additional sessions of the FTC Hearings initiative have been announced and are upcoming:</p><p><strong>March 20, 2019</strong><br />Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li>Competition and Consumer Protection Issues in U.S. Broadband Markets</li></ul><p><strong>March 25, 2019</strong><br />FTC 5th Floor Conference Center, Constitution Center, SW Quadrant<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li>Roundtable with the State Attorneys General</li></ul><p><strong>April 9-10, 2019</strong><br />Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li>The FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy</li></ul><p><strong>April 12, 2019</strong><br />FTC Headquarters, Room 432<br />600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington D.C.</p><ul><li>Merger Retrospectives</li></ul><p>The FTC <em>Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century</em> will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for accommodations should be submitted to Elizabeth Kraszewski via email at <a href="mailto:ekraszewski@ftc.gov">ekraszewski@ftc.gov</a> or by phone at (202) 326-3087. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. Please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">protect and educate consumers</a>. You can <a href="https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/">learn more about consumer topics</a> and file a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/complaint">consumer complaint online</a> or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357). Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Thu, 07 Mar 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1472361FTC Announces Agenda for the 14th Session of its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Centuryhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/03/ftc-announces-agenda-14th-session-its-hearings-competition
<p><strong>April 12 Hearing Will Focus on Merger Retrospectives</strong></p>
<p>The Federal Trade Commission today announced the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1466002/hearings-agenda-hq-april_0.pdf">agenda</a> for the fourteenth session of its <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection">Hearings Initiative</a>. The session, focused on the agency’s merger retrospective program, will take place on April 12, 2019, at FTC Headquarters in Room 432.</p><p>The FTC’s Bureau of Economics has a long tradition of conducting ex post evaluations of consummated mergers, beginning with (then) FTC staff economists David Barton and Roger Sherman’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/price-profit-effects-horizontal-merger-case-study/wp098.pdf">1984 examination</a> of the Xidex mergers of the 1970s. Over the last two decades, FTC economists have publicly released <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-announces-agenda-14th-session-its-hearings-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century/list_of_be_retrospective_studies.pdf">27 merger retrospective studies</a>. The vast majority of merger retrospectives authored or co-authored by Bureau economists are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals.</p><p>This Hearing will gather information from experts to help guide the FTC’s future merger retrospective research program. The Hearing will consist of four sessions. In the first session, a panel will summarize the findings of existing studies, then discuss the requirements for informative retrospective studies. The second session will examine how the findings from merger retrospectives can be used to improve enforcement agencies’ prospective merger enforcement programs, including merger simulation tools and design of merger remedies. The third session will be a panel discussion of how, or if, merger retrospectives can be used to evaluate and guide antitrust policy. In the final session, an expert panel will discuss how the FTC should focus its resources on merger retrospectives in the near future.</p><p>The Commission invites public comment on these issues, including the questions listed below. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2019-0006">Comments can be submitted online</a> no later than 11:59 pm EDT, May 31, 2019.</p><p><strong>Session 1: What have we learned from existing merger retrospectives?</strong></p><ol><li>What are the requirements of successful merger retrospective studies, both in terms of data and in terms of the ability to reasonably compare actual merger outcomes with credible estimates of market outcomes that would have been realized absent the merger?</li><li>Are there industries well- or poorly-suited to study using conventional merger retrospective techniques?</li><li>What types of questions are merger retrospectives likely and unlikely to successfully address?</li><li>Can merger retrospectives be used to measure merger-induced changes in quality, innovation, or investment?</li></ol><p><strong>Session 2: How can merger retrospectives be used to improve prospective merger analysis?</strong></p><ol><li>A number of analytic and empirical tools have been developed to forecast the price impact of mergers. How can merger retrospectives be used to evaluate the efficacy of these tools? What does existing evidence from merger retrospectives tell us about the ability of these tools to forecast post-merger prices? What are good future avenues for research?</li><li>Some retrospective analyses rely on both quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate past enforcement decisions. What kinds of questions can be addressed with qualitative data (e.g., customer surveys) that cannot be addressed with traditional quantitative analyses?</li><li>What are the limitations on using merger retrospectives to evaluate enforcement tools? Are there certain types of economic models that cannot be evaluated with evidence from merger retrospectives? What weight should be placed on the findings from merger retrospectives?</li></ol><p><strong>Session 3: Should the findings from merger retrospectives influence horizontal merger policy and, if so, how?</strong></p><ol><li>All merger retrospectives are case studies. Can the findings from these studies be generalized to inform policy? What are the limitations on applying findings from one industry to another?</li><li>The set of existing retrospective studies is a selected, non-random sample from the population of all consummated mergers. Most studies have analyzed mergers drawn from a handful of industries (e.g., airlines, banking, hospitals, and petroleum). What, if any, inferences can be drawn from this literature about the industries that have not been studied?</li><li>Merger retrospectives can only look at consummated mergers. It is not possible to observe how the mergers that were deterred might have affected market outcomes. How should these “deterred mergers” be included in an analysis of the efficacy of merger enforcement?</li><li>Should merger restrospective studies influence case law? If so, are there particular topics where the courts could benefit from further empirical evidence?</li></ol><p><strong>Session 4: What should the FTC’s retrospective program be over the next decade?</strong></p><ol><li>Are there specific mergers or industries that have not been studied where the FTC should focus its attention?</li><li>Should the FTC use its subpoena power to collect information for merger retrospectives, and if so, what kinds of information should be gathered?</li><li>Should the agency focus on measuring market outcomes in specific industries or, instead, focus its resources on evaluating the efficacy of the methodology used to investigate proposed mergers?</li><li>Should the FTC increase its work with outside researchers to accelerate these research projects? How would this collaboration work best?</li><li>Should the FTC conduct more research to evaluate its past enforcement actions even if that means reducing the resources devoted to prosecuting cases? How should the FTC make this tradeoff?</li></ol><p>The following additional sessions of the FTC Hearings initiative have been announced and are upcoming:</p><p><strong>March 20, 2019</strong></p><p>Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li>Competition and Consumer Protection Issues in U.S. Broadband Markets</li></ul><p><strong>March 25-26, 2019</strong></p><p>FTC Headquarters<br />600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington D.C.</p><ul><li>The FTC’s Role in a Changing World</li></ul><p><strong>March 25, 2019</strong></p><p>FTC 5th Floor Conference Center, Constitution Center, SW Quadrant<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li>Roundtable with the State Attorneys General</li></ul><p><strong>April 9-10, 2019</strong></p><p>Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li>The FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy</li></ul><p>The FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for accommodations should be submitted to Elizabeth Kraszewski via email at <a href="mailto:ekraszewski@ftc.gov">ekraszewski@ftc.gov</a> or by phone at (202) 326-3087. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. Please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy">develops policy initiatives</a> on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Mon, 04 Mar 2019 08:00:00 -0400jwolf1466500FTC Publishes Inflation-Adjusted Civil Penalty Amountshttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/03/ftc-publishes-inflation-adjusted-civil-penalty-amounts
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has adjusted the maximum civil penalty dollar amounts for violations of 16 provisions of law the FTC enforces, as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The Act directs agencies to implement annual inflation adjustments based on a prescribed formula. The new maximum civil penalty amounts took effect on February 14, 2019.</p><p>The maximum civil penalty amount has increased from $41,484 to $42,530 for violations of Sections 5(l), 5(m)(l)(A) and 5(m)(l)(B) of the FTC Act, 7A(g)(l) of the Clayton Act and Section 525(b) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. It has increased from $545 to $559 for violations of Section 10 of the FTC Act.</p><p>The maximum civil penalty amount has increased from $1,180,566 to $1,210,340 for violations of Section 814(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The maximum civil penalty amounts for other law violations within the agency’s jurisdiction are listed in the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/14/2019-02237/adjustments-to-civil-penalty-amounts">Federal Register notice</a>.</p><p>The Commission vote to publish the Federal Register notice amending Commission Rule 1.98 was 5-0. (The staff contact is Kenny A. Wright, Office of the General Counsel, 202-326-2907)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">protect and educate consumers</a>. You can <a href="https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/">learn more about consumer topics</a> and file a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/complaint">consumer complaint online</a> or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357). Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1463538FTC Issues Modified Final Order Imposing Conditions on Merger of International Industrial Gas Suppliers Praxair, Inc. and Linde AGhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-issues-modified-final-order-imposing-conditions-merger
<p><strong>The Commission also approves applications for sale of assets to Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., and to Messer Group GmbH and CVC Capital Partners</strong></p>
<p>Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4660_decision_and_ordermodified_593725_public_redacted.pdf">a modified final order</a> requiring <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-international-industrial-gas-suppliers-praxair-inc">industrial gas suppliers Praxair, Inc. and Linde AG to sell</a> assets in nine industrial gases product markets in numerous U.S. geographic markets to four divestiture buyers. The nine product markets in which the Commission alleged harm in its October 2018 complaint are bulk liquid oxygen, bulk liquid nitrogen, bulk liquid argon, bulk liquid carbon dioxide, bulk liquid hydrogen, bulk refined helium, on-site hydrogen, on-site carbon monoxide, and excimer laser gases.</p><p>According to the complaint, the merger, as originally proposed, would have eliminated direct competition between Praxair and Linde in each of the nine product markets, and would have enabled the merged firm to exercise market power unilaterally by raising prices in those markets. Without the required divestitures, the proposed merger also would have made collusion or coordinated action among the remaining firms in the nine product markets more likely.</p><p>The Commission made two material modifications to the proposed order issued in October 2018. The first modification specifies the scope of the intellectual property that the newly merged Linde must divest. The second modification concerns the joint venture between Messer Group GmbH (“Messer”) and CVC Capital Partners (“CVC”) that is acquiring some of the divested assets. The modified final order gives the Commission the right of prior approval if Messer’s stake in the joint venture falls below 50 percent or if Messer and CVC decide to sell their combined interest in the joint venture to a third party.</p><p>The Commission has also approved an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve-0">application</a> from the parties to divest five on-site hydrogen and carbon monoxide production facilities outside the Gulf Coast region, a hydrogen pipeline in the Gulf Coast region, intellectual property, customer contracts, and other related assets to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve-0">Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.</a> In addition, the Commission has approved an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve">application</a> from the parties to divest facilities that produce liquid atmospheric gases, liquid carbon dioxide, liquid hydrogen, laser gases, and liquid helium to the Messer/CVC joint venture. Thus, the Commission has approved applications for all the divestitures required by the Commission’s final order in this case.</p><p>Prior to the merger, Praxair was the world’s third-largest industrial gas supplier by revenue, and Linde was the second-largest global industrial gas supplier. The merger creates the largest industrial gas company in the world.</p><p>The Commission vote to approve the modified final order in this matter was 4-1. Commissioner Rohit Chopra dissented. The Commission votes to approve the parties’ applications to divest assets to Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc., and the Messer/CVC joint venture were both 4-0-1, with Commissioner Rohit Chopra abstaining.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1463510Last Remaining Defendant Settles FTC Suit that Led to Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Drug Company “Reverse Payments”https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/last-remaining-defendant-settles-ftc-suit-led-landmark-supreme
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has reached a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/watson_final_motion_for_permanent_injunction.pdf">settlement in </a><em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/watson_final_motion_for_permanent_injunction.pdf">FTC v. Actavis</a>, </em>the 2009 FTC case alleging that the brand-name drug company Solvay and three generic drug companies illegally agreed to restrict generic competition to Solvay’s branded testosterone-replacement drug AndroGel for nine years.</p><p>After the district court dismissed the FTC’s complaint and the appellate court affirmed the district court decision, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/130617actavisopinion.pdf">the Supreme Court, in June 2013, rejected lower court rulings</a> that treated “reverse-payment” patent settlements (agreements in which the patent holder pays the alleged infringer) as largely immune from antitrust law. The Court held such agreements are subject to antitrust scrutiny. The case was remanded to the district court, and trial was scheduled to begin on March 4, 2019.</p><p>“<em>FTC v. Actavis</em> turned the tide on anticompetitive reverse payments in the pharmaceutical industry,” said Chairman Joe Simons. “After the Supreme Court recognized the harmful effects that reverse-payment agreements can have on competition and ultimately on consumers, we have seen fewer of these types of agreements.”</p><p>The settlement covers those products that Solvay may have been marketing or developing before its purchase in 2010 by Abbott Laboratories, which later spun off its worldwide pharmaceutical business into AbbVie Inc.</p><p>Under the settlement, Solvay’s current owner AbbVie is prohibited from entering into certain patent infringement settlement agreements that restrict generic entry for certain drugs and contain common forms of reverse payments, such as: (1) a side deal, in which the generic company receives compensation in the form of a business transaction entered at the same time as the patent litigation settlement; or (2) a no-AG commitment, in which a brand company agrees not to compete with an authorized generic version of a drug for a period of time.</p><p>The settlement exempts licenses to enter the market on a later date, compensation for saved future litigation costs up to $7 million, a continuation or renewal of a pre-existing agreement, and several other types of agreements that are unlikely to be anticompetitive.</p><p>The order, if approved by the court, will remain in effect for 10 years.</p><p>The Commission vote approving Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction was 4-0-1. Commissioner Christine S. Wilson was recused. The FTC filed the proposed order<strong> </strong>in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.</p><p><strong>NOTE:</strong> Stipulated final orders have the force of law when signed and entered by a District Court judge.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1463503FTC Extends Public Comment Periods for Some Sessions of its Hearings Initiativehttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-extends-public-comment-periods-some-sessions-its-hearings
<p>The Federal Trade Commission announced that it has extended the public comment periods for some of the sessions in its <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection"><em>Hearings Initiative</em></a>, and that comments for all the remaining sessions will be due by <strong>May 31, 11:59 PM EDT</strong>.</p><p>Specifically, for the following sessions, the deadline for members of the public to submit a comment has been extended from March 13 until May 31:</p><ul><li>The December 11 <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-december-2018">hearing on <em>data security</em></a>;</li><li>The April 9-10 <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-february-2019">hearing on <em>consumer privacy.</em></a></li></ul><p>In addition, public comments for the following upcoming sessions will be due by May 31:</p><ul><li>The March 20 <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-10-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">hearing on <em>U.S. broadband markets</em></a>;</li><li>The March 25-26 <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-11-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">hearing on <em>the FTC's role in a changing world</em></a>;</li><li>The March 25 roundtable with State Attorneys General (the comment period will open soon when the agency publishes more information about the topics for the hearing);</li><li>The April 12 hearing on Merger Retrospectives (the comment period will open soon when the agency publishes more information about the topics for the hearing).</li></ul><p>The Commission will provide a final opportunity for members of the public to comment on topics related to any sessions associated with the Hearings Initiative. Those comments will also be due by May 31.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy">develops policy initiatives</a> on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1463244FTC’s Bureau of Competition Launches Task Force to Monitor Technology Marketshttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftcs-bureau-competition-launches-task-force-monitor-technology
<p><strong>Agency dedicates resources exclusively towards monitoring competition in the tech industry and taking enforcement actions when warranted</strong></p>
<p><em>Note: The FTC will host a conference call for media with Bureau of Competition Director Bruce Hoffman:</em></p><p><em>Date: Feb. 26, 2019<br />Time: 12 noon ET<br />Call-in: (800) 288-8961, confirmation number 464702</em></p><p><em>Call-in lines, which are for <strong>media only</strong>, will open 15 minutes prior to the start of the call. Bruce Hoffman will be available to take questions about the FTC Technology Task Force.</em></p><p>The Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition announced the creation of a task force dedicated to monitoring competition in U.S. technology markets, investigating any potential anticompetitive conduct in those markets, and taking enforcement actions when warranted.</p><p>To create the Technology Task Force, the Bureau of Competition will draw upon existing staff and expertise to enhance the Bureau’s focus on technology-related sectors of the economy, including markets in which online platforms compete. The creation of this task force is modeled on the FTC’s successful <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2002/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-formation-merger-litigation">Merger Litigation Task Force</a>, launched in 2002 by then-Bureau of Competition Director Joe Simons. The 2002 task force reinvigorated the Commission’s hospital merger review program, and also sharpened the agency’s focus on merger enforcement in retail industries, particularly regarding matters involving food, beverages, and supermarkets.</p><p>“The role of technology in the economy and in our lives grows more important every day,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. “As I’ve noted in the past, it makes sense for us to closely examine technology markets to ensure consumers benefit from free and fair competition. Our ongoing Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century are a crucial step to deepen our understanding of these markets and potential competitive issues. The Technology Task Force is the next step in that effort.”</p><p>The new task force team will include approximately 17 staff attorneys. Task force members, who will join the task force from divisions within the Bureau, will include attorneys with unique expertise in complex product and service markets and ecosystems, including markets for online advertising, social networking, mobile operating systems and apps, and platform businesses. The task force will also include a Technology Fellow, who will provide important technical assistance and expertise to support the task force’s investigations.</p><p>The new task force will be led by Patricia Galvan, currently the Deputy Assistant Director of the Mergers III Division, and Krisha Cerilli, currently Counsel to the Director. The task force will be overseen by Director Bruce Hoffman, Deputy Director Gail Levine, and Associate Director for Digital Markets Daniel Francis. The Technology Task Force will work closely with economists from the FTC’s Bureau of Economics. In addition, task force members will coordinate with their counterparts in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection who also focus on technology platforms.</p><p>“Technology markets, which are rapidly evolving and touch so many other sectors of the economy, raise distinct challenges for antitrust enforcement,” said Bureau Director Bruce Hoffman. “By centralizing our expertise and attention, the new task force will be able to focus on these markets exclusively – ensuring they are operating pursuant to the antitrust laws, and taking action where they are not.”</p><p>In addition to examining industry practices and conducting law enforcement investigations, the Technology Task Force will, among other things, coordinate and consult with staff throughout the FTC on technology-related matters, including prospective merger reviews in the technology sector and reviews of consummated technology mergers.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">protect and educate consumers</a>. You can <a href="https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/">learn more about consumer topics</a> and file a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/complaint">consumer complaint online</a> or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357). Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Tue, 26 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1460465FTC Approves Supervalu Inc.’s Application to Sell 2 Supermarkets Operating under the Shop ’n Save Banner in Virginia and West Virginiahttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-approves-supervalu-incs-application-sell-2-supermarkets
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has approved an application by Supervalu Inc. to sell a Shop ’n Save supermarket in Berryville, Va., and another in Martinsburg, W.Va. to Ahold/Delhaize. Supervalu acquired the stores under the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/10/ftc-approves-modified-final-order-preserving-competition-among">FTC’s Oct. 31, 2016 modified final order</a> settling charges that the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/ftc-requires-ahold-delhaize-group-sell-81-stores-condition-merger">$28 billion merger of supermarket chain operators Koninklijke Ahold and Delhaize Group</a> would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>Under the order, Supervalu is required to obtain Commission approval to resell certain stores within three years. According to the application, shortly after Supervalu acquired the stores, these locations experienced a steep decline in sales. Despite significant efforts, Supervalu was unable to bring shoppers back to the stores and recover the lost sales.</p><p>Faced with this poor initial performance, Supervalu’s joint-venture partner in the divestiture declined to take over the stores, according to the application. Supervalu states that it planned to close the stores in the coming months unless it was able to find a buyer. Supervalu contacted a large number of potential buyers. After no suitable alternative buyer emerged, Supervalu agreed to resell the stores back to Ahold/Delhaize, the application notes. Ahold/Delhaize intends to continue to operate the stores and make investments in the stores going forward, which should benefit both employees and consumers in these cities.</p><p>The Commission vote to approve the application was 5-0. (FTC File No. 151 0175; the staff contact is Eric D. Rohlck, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2861.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1456356FTC Approves Final Order Imposing Conditions on Joint Venture among Three Producers of PET Resinhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-approves-final-order-imposing-conditions-joint-venture-among
<p>Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/181_0030_c-4672_dak_indorama_decision_and_order_2-25-19.pdf">final order settling charges that three PET resin producers’ proposed $1.1 billion joint acquisition</a> out of bankruptcy of an under-construction PET production facility would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-imposes-conditions-joint-venture-among-three-producers-pet">complaint, which was first announced in December 2018</a>, without a remedy, the proposed acquisition likely would substantially lessen competition in the highly concentrated North American market for PET resin.</p><p>The terms of the final order prevent the joint-venture partners—Alpek S.A.B. de C.V., known as DAK, Indorama Ventures Plc, and Far Eastern New Century—from using their joint ownership of the assets to act alone or in concert to exercise market power or to transmit competitively sensitive information beyond what is necessary to accomplish the legitimate purposes of the venture.</p><p>The Commission vote approving the final order was 5-0. (The staff contact is Michael E. Blaisdell, Bureau of Competition<em>,</em> 202-326-3220)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Mon, 25 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1456349FTC Approves Application from Praxair and Linde for Sale of an Industrial Gases Plant to LyondellBasell Acetyls, LLChttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-approves-application-praxair-linde-sale-industrial-gases-0
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has approved an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve-1">application from industrial gas suppliers Praxair and Linde</a> to divest a hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas plant to LyondellBasell Acetyls, LLC. The divestiture of the plant is required under the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-international-industrial-gas-suppliers-praxair-inc">FTC’s October 22, 2018 proposed order</a>, which requires Praxair and Linde to divest certain industrial gases assets to settle charges that their $80 billion merger would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>The application proposes that LyondellBasell will acquire Linde’s hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas plant in La Porte, Texas. The Commission vote to approve the application was 4-0-1. Commissioner Rohit Chopra abstained. (FTC File No. 171 0068. The staff contact is Eric Rohlck, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2681.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400jwolf1456300FTC Announces Agenda for the Tenth Session of its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-announces-agenda-tenth-session-its-hearings-competition
<p><strong>March 20 Hearing will examine competition and consumer protection issues in broadband markets</strong></p>
<p>The Federal Trade Commission today <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1440281/hearings-agenda-cc-march20_1.pdf">announced the agenda</a> for the tenth session of its <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection">Hearings Initiative</a></em>. The session, focused on competition and consumer protection issues in broadband markets, will take place on March 20, 2019 at the Constitution Center Auditorium at 400 7th St., SW, Washington D.C. The hearing originally was scheduled for January 16, 2019, but was postponed due to the government shutdown.</p><p>The hearing will examine developments in U.S. broadband markets, technology, and law since the FTC staff’s 2007<em> <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/broadband-connectivity-competition-policy/v070000report.pdf">Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy</a></em> report and the FTC staff’s 1996 <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/anticipating-21st-century-competition-policy-new-high-tech-global-marketplace/gc_v1.pdf">Competition Policy in the New High-Tech, Global Marketplace</a></em> report. Participants in the hearing will discuss: (i) the evolution of broadband networking and broadband markets since the <em>2007 Broadband Report</em>; (ii) the identification and evaluation of advertising claims by internet service providers with respect to the delivery speed of content; and (iii) the identification and evaluation of conduct by broadband market participants that may be exclusionary or anticompetitive.</p><p>As previously announced, the Commission invites public comment on these issues, including the questions listed below. The comment-filing deadline has been extended: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0113">comments should be submitted online</a> by 11:59 pm EDT, May 31, 2019.</p><ol><li>The FTC’s <em>2007 Broadband Report</em> provided a technical background of broadband market issues relevant at that time. How should the Commission evaluate broadband technology issues now? Which technological developments are important for understanding the competitiveness of the industry? How would technological developments likely to occur in the near future impact the competitiveness of broadband markets, or otherwise affect consumer interests?</li><li>How should the Commission define relevant markets in this industry? How should the Commission identify and measure market power of content providers, content delivery networks, internet transit providers, internet service providers, and other relevant market actors?</li><li>How should the Commission identify and evaluate conduct in this industry that may be exclusionary or anticompetitive, including but not limited to discounting and preferential pricing, contracts and agreements between firms in vertical relationships, and conduct that may undermine or discriminate against rivals? Under what conditions does such conduct harm consumers? Under what conditions is conduct that may exclude or discriminate against rivals also associated with short-run or long-run efficiencies or consumer benefits? </li><li>Do existing local, state, or federal regulations affect different market participants in ways that limit competition and innovation?</li><li>What are the existing standards, if any, regarding how actual internet speeds correspond to advertised internet speeds? Are such standards relevant to an FTC analysis under Section 5?</li><li>What tools, platforms, and research are used to measure the speed of broadband and related services? Are they adequate for the FTC’s analysis of speed claims? If not, what additional resources are needed? Do competitors rely on data from these sources in challenging each other’s speed claims? </li><li>How can consumers or other stakeholders determine whether actual internet speeds match advertised speeds?</li><li>Do existing methods of advertising internet speed adequately inform consumers about their choices for broadband and telecommunications services?</li></ol><p>Listed below are <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-announces-new-sessions-its-hearings-competition-consumer">additional upcoming sessions of the FTC’s <em>Hearings Initiative</em></a>:</p><p><strong>March 25-26, 2019</strong><br />FTC Headquarters<br />600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington D.C.</p><ul><li><em>The FTC’s Role in a Changing World</em></li></ul><p><strong>March 25, 2019 [To Be Rescheduled]</strong><br />FTC 5th Floor Conference Center, Constitution Center, SW Quadrant<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li><em>Roundtable with the State Attorneys General </em></li></ul><p><strong>April 9-10, 2019</strong><br />Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, DC</p><ul><li><em>The FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy </em></li></ul><p><strong>April 12, 2019</strong><br />FTC Headquarters<br />600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington D.C.<strong> </strong></p><ul><li><em>Merger Retrospectives</em></li></ul><p>The FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for accommodations should be submitted to <em>Elizabeth Kraszewski via email at </em><a href="mailto:ekraszewski@ftc.gov">ekraszewski@ftc.gov</a><em> or by phone at (202) 326-3087</em>. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. Please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy">develops policy initiatives</a> on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1456293FTC Approves Final Order Imposing Conditions on Penn National Gaming, Inc.’s Acquisition of Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-approves-final-order-imposing-conditions-penn-national-gaming
<p>Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/181_0011_penn_pinnacle_do_final.pdf">final order settling charges that casino operator Penn National Gaming, Inc.’s</a> $2.8 billion agreement to acquire Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. likely would be anticompetitive.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-casino-operators-penn-national-gaming-inc-pinnacle">complaint, which was first announced in October 2018, the proposed acquisition would harm competition for casino services</a>—namely, slots and table games, as well as related lodging, entertainment, and food and beverage services—in metropolitan St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; and Cincinnati, Ohio.</p><p>Under the settlement, Penn and Pinnacle must divest to Boyd Gaming Company Pinnacle’s Ameristar St. Charles property in the St. Louis market, Pinnacle’s Ameristar Kansas City property in the Kansas City market, and Pinnacle’s Belterra Park and Belterra Resort properties in the Cincinnati market.</p><p>The Commission vote approving the final order was 4-0-1. Commissioner Christine S. Wilson did not participate. (The staff contact is Maria M. DiMoscato, Bureau of Competition, 202-326- 2315)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400jwolf1456167FTC Requires Fresenius Medical Care AG &amp; KGaA and NxStage Medical, Inc. to Divest Bloodline Tubing Assets to B. Braun Medical, Inc. as a Condition of Mergerhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-requires-fresenius-medical-care-ag-kgaa-nxstage-medical-inc
<p>The Federal Trade Commission will require healthcare companies Fresenius Medical Care AG &amp; KGaA (Fresenius) and NxStage Medical, Inc. (NxStage) to divest all rights and assets related to NxStage’s bloodline tubing set business to B. Braun Medical, Inc. (B. Braun) as part of a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1710227_fresenius-nxstage_decision_and_order.pdf">settlement resolving charges that Fresenius’s proposed $2 billion acquisition</a> of NxStage likely would be anticompetitive.</p><p>The FTC’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1710227_fresenius-nxstage_complaint_2-19-19.pdf">complaint alleges that the proposed merger would harm competition</a> in the U.S. market for bloodline tubing sets that are compatible with hemodialysis machines used in clinics that treat chronic renal failure. Bloodline tubing sets are single-use plastic tube sets used during hemodialysis treatments.</p><p>The complaint alleges that the acquisition as proposed would likely result in substantial competitive harm to consumers in the U.S. market for bloodline tubing sets used in hemodialysis treatment. Fresenius and NxStage are two of only three significant suppliers of bloodline tubing sets used in open architecture hemodialysis machines in the United States. Fresenius and NxStage together control 82 percent of the market for bloodlines.</p><p>Eliminating the head-to-head competition between Fresenius and NxStage in this highly concentrated market would allow the combined firm to exercise market power unilaterally, resulting in higher prices, reduced innovation, and less choice for customers in this market. The complaint further alleges that new entry into this market is difficult, expensive, and unlikely to alleviate the competitive harm.</p><p>The proposed settlement seeks to maintain competition in the U.S. market for bloodline tubing sets and requires Fresenius and NxStage to divest to B. Braun all assets and rights to research, develop, manufacture, market, and sell NxStage’s bloodline tubing sets. As explained in the accompanying <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1710227_fresenius-nxstage_analysis.pdf">analysis to aid public comment</a>, the parties must complete the divestitures and relinquish their rights to B. Braun no later than 10 days after the acquisition becomes final.</p><p>To ensure the divestiture is successful and to maintain continuity of supply, the proposed order requires the parties to supply B. Braun with bloodline tubing sets for a limited time, while it establishes its own manufacturing capability. The Commission has agreed to appoint a monitor to ensure that Fresenius and NxStage comply with all of their obligations under the order.</p><p>If the Commission determines that B. Braun is not an acceptable buyer, or that the manner of the divestiture is not acceptable, the proposed order requires the parties to unwind the sale of rights to B. Braun and then divest the products to an FTC-approved buyer or buyers within six months of when the order becomes final.</p><p>The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent order for public comment was 3-2. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/02/statement-chairman-simons-commissioner-phillips-commissioner-wilson">Chairman Joseph J. Simons, Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, and Commissioner Christine S. Wilson</a> issued a statement. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/02/statement-commissioner-chopra-matter-fresenius-medical-care-ag-co-kgaa">Commissioner Rohit Chopra</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/02/statement-commissioner-slaughter-matter-fresenius-medical-care-nxstage">Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter</a> issued dissenting statements.</p><p>The FTC will publish the consent package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through March 21, 2019, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2019-0005">Comments can be filed electronically</a> or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.</p><p><strong>NOTE:</strong> The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $42,530.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1455698FTC Enters Global Settlement to Resolve Reverse-Payment Charges against Tevahttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-enters-global-settlement-resolve-reverse-payment-charges
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has reached a global settlement resolving pending claims in three separate federal court antitrust lawsuits involving subsidiaries of pharmaceutical manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. If approved by the various courts, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/teva_proposed_stipulated_revised_order.pdf">stipulated order</a> will prohibit Teva from engaging in reverse-payment patent settlement agreements that impede consumer access to lower-priced generic drugs.</p><p>“This settlement represents another milestone in the Commission’s unwavering commitment to put an end to harmful reverse-payment agreements,” said Chairman Joe Simons. “This broad settlement prevents the world’s largest manufacturer of generic drugs from entering into collusive agreements that prevent price competition by keeping generic drugs off the market.”</p><p>Under the stipulated order for a permanent injunction, Teva is prohibited from entering into a patent infringement settlement agreement that includes a reverse payment transferring value from the brand to the generic. Although Teva is currently bound by <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/05/ftc-settlement-cephalon-pay-delay-case-ensures-12-billion-ill">a prior order in <em>FTC v. Cephalon</em></a>, the new order is broader, prohibiting Teva from entering into the two most pernicious and common forms of reverse payments: (1) a side deal, in which the generic company receives compensation in the form of a business transaction entered at the same time as the patent litigation settlement; and (2) a no-AG commitment, in which a brand company agrees not to compete with an authorized generic version of a drug for a period of time. The prior order had not prohibited no-AG commitments. The new revised order, which would last for 10 years from the date of entry, provides immediate relief to consumers, without the costs and risks of trial and appeal in three pending cases.</p><p>To effectuate the global settlement, the Commission authorized staff to file the necessary motions in three pending federal court cases:</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/071-0060/watson-pharmaceuticals-inc-et-al-ftc-v-actavis">FTC v. Actavis (No. 09-cv-955 N.D. Ga.)</a>: The Commission filed its complaint on January 27, 2009, alleging a reverse-payment agreement between Solvay (the brand, now AbbVie Products LLC) and Watson (the generic, now Actavis Holdco, a subsidiary of Teva) to delay the release of a generic version of AndroGel, a popular testosterone replacement drug. Following the district court’s dismissal of the FTC’s complaint, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/130617actavisopinion.pdf">Supreme Court, in June 2013 reversed that decision</a> (570 U.S. 136), finding that reverse-payment agreements can violate the antitrust laws. The FTC’s case was remanded, and trial is scheduled to begin on March 4, 2019.</p><p>Under the global settlement, the Commission will ask the court to dismiss Teva from the proceedings. The Commission’s charges against Solvay will proceed to trial as scheduled.</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/141-0004/allergan-plc-watson-laboratories-inc-et-al">FTC v. Allergan plc (No. 17-cv-321 N.D. Cal.):</a> The Commission filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, alleging a reverse-payment agreement to block consumer’s access to lower-cost versions of Lidoderm with compensation in the form of (1) a no-AG commitment between Endo Pharmaceuticals (the brand, partnered with Teikoku, the creator and manufacturer of Lidoderm) and the generics (Watson Laboratories, now part of Teva, and Watson Pharmaceuticals, now Allergan Finance, a subsidiary of Allergan plc) and (2) $96 million of branded Lidoderm product given to Watson at no cost. Lidoderm is a topical patch used to relieve pain associated with a complication of shingles known as post-herpetic neuralgia. Endo and Teikoku already settled the Commission’s charges in <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/allergan_jt_mtn_re_stip_order.pdf">stipulated order</a>s that bar them from entering into similar agreements, including ones that contain a no-AG commitment, for 10 years.</p><p>Under the global settlement, the Commission will ask the court to dismiss the remaining claims against Teva, Allergan plc, and Allergan Finance, LLC, which effectively will end this litigation if approved by the court.</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/121-0028/abbvie-inc-et-al">FTC v. AbbVie, Inc. (No. 14-cv-5151 E.D. Pa.):</a> The Commission filed its complaint on September 8, 2014, alleging a reverse-payment agreement between AbbVie, Inc. (and its predecessor company, Abbott Laboratories, and subsidiary Unimed (the brand companies)) and Teva (the generic). The complaint also contains allegations that AbbVie and its partner Besins Healthcare Inc. filed baseless patent infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors, including Teva, to delay the introduction of lower-priced versions of AndroGel. The court dismissed the FTC’s reverse-payment claim in 2015. This ruling is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.</p><p>Under the global settlement, the Commission will resolve its claims against generic Teva. The FTC’s appeal of the dismissal of the reverse-payment claim will continue against the brand companies, as will the appeal of the district court’s ruling on the sham litigation claim.</p><p>The Commission vote to accept the settlement and file the necessary papers in the various cases was 4-0-1. Commissioner Christine S. Wilson did not participate.</p><p><strong>NOTE:</strong> Stipulated final orders have the force of law when signed and entered by a District Court judge.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1455691FTC Announces Annual Update of Size of Transaction Thresholds for Premerger Notification Filings and Interlocking Directorateshttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-announces-annual-update-size-transaction-thresholds-premerger
<p>For 2019, the size-of-transaction threshold for reporting proposed mergers and acquisitions under Section 7A of the Clayton Act will adjust from $84.4 million to $90 million. Also, the 2019 thresholds under Section 8 of the Act that trigger prohibitions on certain interlocking memberships on corporate boards of directors are $36,564,000 for Section 8(a)(l ) and $3,656,400 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).</p><p>The FTC revises the thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The revised <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/federal-register-notices/revised-jurisdictional-thresholds-section-7a-clayton-act-notice-1">thresholds under Section 7A of the Clayton Act</a> will apply to all transactions that close on or after the effective date of the notice, which is 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/federal-register-notices/revised-jurisdictional-thresholds-section-8-clayton-act-notice-1">thresholds for Section 8 of the Clayton Act</a> become effective upon publication in the Federal Register. A <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/premerger-notification-program/current-thresholds">complete listing of current thresholds</a> can be found on the FTC’s website, and will be updated once the revised thresholds are published in the Federal Register. The announcement of this year’s revised thresholds was delayed due to the recent federal government shutdown.</p><p>The votes to approve the Federal Register notices announcing the threshold revisions were both 5-0. (FTC File No. P859910; the staff contact for Section 7A is Nora Whitehead, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3262; the staff contact for Section 8 is James Mongoven, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2879.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1454914FTC Announces March 2019 Session on International Engagement as Part of its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Centuryhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-announces-march-2019-session-international-engagement-part
<p>The 11th session of the Federal Trade Commission’s <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection">Hearings Initiative</a></em>, “<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-11-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">The FTC’s Role in a Changing World</a>,” will focus on the agency’s international work. The hearing will take place in Washington, D.C. on March 25-26, 2019.</p><p>The session <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/1454018/agenda_for_ftc_international_hearing_2.pdf">will explore the FTC’s international role</a> in light of globalization, technological change, and the increasing number of competition, consumer protection, and privacy laws and enforcement agencies around the world. Speakers will address the implications of international developments on the FTC’s work on behalf of American consumers. The session will be held at the FTC’s headquarters building at <strong>600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC</strong> in room 432.</p><p>At the hearing, the FTC will consider:</p><ul><li>The effectiveness of the FTC’s enforcement cooperation tools and approaches in light of new challenges in competition, consumer protection, and privacy matters;</li><li>Approaches to promoting international policy coordination and best practice development; and</li><li>Strategies for international enforcement and policy engagement given today’s dynamic global marketplace.</li></ul><p>To deepen its understanding of these issues, the agency seeks public comment on the questions listed below, and welcomes input on other related topics.</p><p><strong>The FTC’s Tools and Approaches for International Engagement</strong></p><ol><li>How effective are the FTC’s tools and approaches in addressing international investigative, enforcement, and policy challenges and opportunities?</li><li>What strategies should competition, consumer protection, and privacy agencies use to achieve convergent or interoperable policies and consistent or complementary enforcement outcomes?</li><li>How should the FTC engage internationally regarding its competition, consumer protection, and privacy enforcement priorities in light of changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new technologies, and international developments?</li></ol><p><strong>Enforcement Cooperation</strong></p><ol start="4"><li>What factors contribute to either more or less effective enforcement cooperation in consumer protection, privacy, and competition matters?</li><li>How can cross-border enforcement cooperation be strengthened? What are the obstacles to such cooperation?</li><li>How might the FTC use additional authority, tools, and approaches to ensure more effective enforcement cooperation?</li><li>How well have the U.S. SAFE WEB Act and the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act served their international enforcement cooperation objectives? </li><li>Are there tools or approaches available to enforcement agencies in other fields or jurisdictions that might be adapted to improve the FTC’s enforcement cooperation?</li><li>What effects do data regulations have on cross-border information sharing, cooperation, and enforcement in competition, consumer protection, and privacy cases?</li></ol><p><strong>Policy and General International Cooperation</strong></p><ol start="10"><li>What role should "soft law" (<em>e.g., </em>best practices/ guiding principles) play in promoting convergence or interoperability in policy approaches?</li><li>How do differing views on the roles of government, self-regulation, and private enforcement affect policy development and enforcement cooperation?</li><li>How do differences in institutional design affect agency enforcement and policy cooperation?</li></ol><p><strong>Engagement Regarding Emerging Technologies</strong></p><ol start="13"><li>How can the FTC best work with foreign agencies to develop effective policies on competition, consumer protection, and privacy concerning emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence? What are the challenges?</li><li>From a practical perspective, what are the consequences of having differing approaches internationally to competition, consumer protection, and privacy enforcement around artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies?</li></ol><p><strong>International Engagement in a Changing Global World</strong></p><ol start="15"><li>What are the most important issues on which the FTC should engage with foreign counterparts and international organizations?</li><li>How can the FTC continue to be a leader internationally, including on emerging issues?</li><li>In light of international and technological developments, how can the FTC ensure the continued effectiveness of its technical assistance program?</li><li>What tools or approaches of foreign competition, consumer protection, or privacy agencies could benefit the FTC’s international program?</li><li>How should the FTC interact with other U.S. government agencies regarding issues raised by foreign competition, consumer protection, and privacy policy and enforcement?</li><li>What roles can the private sector and civil society play in light of new challenges in competition, consumer protection, and privacy matters?</li><li>How can the private sector foster accountability for international transfers of consumer data?</li></ol><p><a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2019-0002">Comments can be submitted online</a> and are due by 11:59 pm, May 31, 2019. If any entity has provided funding for research, analysis, or commentary that is included in a submitted public comment, such funding and its source should be identified on the first page of the comment.</p><p>The FTC <em>Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century</em> will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for accommodations should be submitted to Elizabeth Kraszewski via email at <a href="mailto:ekraszewski@ftc.gov">ekraszewski@ftc.gov</a> or by phone at (202) 326-3087. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. Please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consumer-protection">protect and educate consumers</a>. You can <a href="https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/">learn more about consumer topics</a> and file a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/complaint">consumer complaint online</a> or by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (382-4357). Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1454669FTC Announces New Sessions of its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Centuryhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-announces-new-sessions-its-hearings-competition-consumer
<p><strong>Hearings in March and April will cover broadband markets, consumer privacy, merger retrospectives, international engagement, and will include a roundtable with State Attorneys General</strong></p>
<p>The Federal Trade Commission Hearings schedule sets new dates for the two previously scheduled sessions – <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-announces-tenth-session-its-hearings-competition-consumer">broadband</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-february-2019">consumer privacy</a> – canceled due to the recent lapse in government funding. The Hearings will also include sessions on international issues in competition, consumer protection and privacy, and the analysis of merger retrospectives, as well as a State Attorneys General roundtable.</p><ul><li><strong>March 20, 2019</strong><br /><em>Competition and Consumer Protection Issues in U.S. Broadband Markets</em><br />FTC Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, D.C.<br /> </li><li><strong>March 25-26, 2019</strong><br /><em>The FTC’s Role in a Changing World</em><br />FTC Headquarters<br />600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington D.C.<br /> </li><li><strong><s>March 25, 2019</s> [To Be Rescheduled]</strong><br /><em>Roundtable with the State Attorneys General</em><br />FTC Conference Center, SW Quadrant<br />Constitution Center<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, D.C.<br /> </li><li><strong>April 9-10, 2019</strong><br /><em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century-february-2019">The FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy</a></em><br />FTC Constitution Center Auditorium<br />400 7th St., SW, Washington, D.C.<br /> </li><li><strong>April 12, 2019</strong><br /><em>Merger Retrospectives</em><br />FTC Headquarters<br />600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington D.C.</li></ul><p>The FTC will provide the agendas and participants for these hearings in future announcements.</p><p>The FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for accommodations should be submitted to Elizabeth Kraszewski via email at <a href="mailto:ekraszewski@ftc.gov">ekraszewski@ftc.gov</a> or by phone at (202) 326-3087. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. Please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy">develops policy initiatives</a> on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1454333FTC Approves Application from Praxair and Linde for Sale of an Industrial Gases Plant to Celanese Ltd.https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-approves-application-praxair-linde-sale-industrial-gases
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has approved an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/11/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve">application from industrial gas suppliers Praxair and Linde</a> to divest a hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas plant to Celanese Ltd. The divestiture of the plant is required under the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-international-industrial-gas-suppliers-praxair-inc">FTC’s October 22, 2018 proposed order</a>, which requires Praxair and Linde to divest certain industrial gases assets to settle charges that the $80 billion merger of Praxair and Linde would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>The application proposes that Celanese Ltd. will acquire Linde’s hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas plant in Clear Lake, Texas. The Commission vote to approve the application was 4-0-1 (Commissioner Chopra abstaining). (FTC File No. 171 0068. The staff contact is Eric Rohlck, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2681.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1452793FTC Approves Final Order Imposing Conditions on Marathon Petroleum Corporation’s Acquisition of Express Marthttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/02/ftc-approves-final-order-imposing-conditions-marathon-petroleum
<p>Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4661_181_0152_marathon_do_redacted_public_version.pdf">final order settling charges that Marathon Petroleum Corp.’s proposed acquisition of Express Mart would violate federal antitrust law</a>.</p><p>Marathon’s wholly owned subsidiary Speedway operates the second-largest chain of company-owned and -operated gasoline and convenience stores in the United States. Express Mart is a Syracuse, N.Y.-based operator of convenience stores and retail fuel outlets.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-divestitures-condition-marathon-petroleum">complaint, which was first announced in October 2018, the acquisition likely would harm competition</a> for both retail gasoline and retail diesel in five local markets in New York State: Farmington, Fayetteville, Johnson City, Rochester, and Whitney Point.</p><p>Under the terms of the proposed consent order, Marathon will be required to divest to Sunoco retail fuel assets in Farmington, Fayetteville, Johnson City, Rochester, and Whitney Point within 90 days after the acquisition is completed. Marathon and Express Mart will be required to maintain the competitiveness of the divestiture assets during the divestiture process.</p><p>The Commission vote approving the final order was 5-0. (The staff contact is Helder G. Agostinho, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3415.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1451631FTC Imposes Conditions on Staples’ Acquisition of Office Supply Wholesaler Essendant Inc.https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/01/ftc-imposes-conditions-staples-acquisition-office-supply
<p><strong>Settlement will prevent anticompetitive harm by restricting Staples’ access to Essendant’s commercially sensitive data</strong></p>
<p>Office supply distributors Staples Inc. and Essendant Inc. have agreed to a settlement as part of the companies’ proposed $482.7 million merger in order to resolve <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1810180_staples_essendant_complaint_1-28-19.pdf">Federal Trade Commission allegations that the deal may have harmed competition</a> in the market for office supply products sold to small- and mid-sized businesses.</p><p>Staples, which is owned by the private-equity firm Sycamore Partners, will establish a firewall separating Staples’ business-to-business sales operations from Essendant’s wholesale business, under the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1810180_staples_essendant_agreement_1-28-19.pdf">settlement order with the FTC</a>. This firewall will restrict Staples’ access to the commercially sensitive information of Essendant’s customers.</p><p>Staples is the largest vertically integrated reseller of office products in the United States, and one of only two retail office supply superstores in the United States. Essendant is the largest U.S. wholesale distributor of office products, including sales of office products, janitorial products, breakroom supplies, technology products, office furniture, and industrial and automotive products. It sells a range of office products to office supply resellers and owns a network of distribution centers and trucks.</p><p>In a complaint filed along with the proposed consent agreement, the FTC alleged that Staples competes with Essendant-sourced independent dealers to sell office supplies to mid-sized business customers. As a result of the acquisition, Staples would have access to commercially sensitive business information on Essendant’s reseller customers, and those resellers’ end customers, which could allow Staples to offer higher prices than it otherwise would when bidding against a reseller for an end customer’s business.</p><p>The proposed settlement order will limit access to commercially sensitive information of dealers who buy from Essendant, including those dealers’ data about their customers, to only those Staples employees who will be performing wholesale functions.</p><p>Further details about the consent agreement, which allows the Commission to appoint a monitor and requires prior notice to the Commission for certain acquisitions, are set forth in the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/1810180_staples_essendant_analysis_1-28-19.pdf">analysis to aid public comment for this matter</a>.</p><p>The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent order for public comment was 3-2. <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1448328/181_0180_staples_essendant_majority_statement_1-28-19.pdf">Chairman Simons, Commissioner Phillips, and Commissioner Wilson issued a statement.</a> <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1448307/181_0180_staples_essendant_wilson_statement.pdf">Commissioner Wilson also issued a separate statement</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1448335/181_0180_staples_essendant_chopra_statement_1-28-19_0.pdf">Commissioner Chopra</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1448321/181_0180_staples_essendant_slaughter_statement.pdf">Commissioner Slaughter</a> issued dissenting statements. The FTC will publish the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through Feb. 27, 2019. The Commission issued the accompanying Decision and Order as final prior to seeking public comment, as provided in Section 2.34(c) of the Commission’s Rules. This will allow the Commission to enforce the Order if there are any violations of its provisions during the public comment period. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission again will review the proposed Consent Agreement and comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, or modify the accompanying Order. <a href="https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/staplesessendantconsent">Comments can be filed electronically</a> or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.</p><p><strong>NOTE:</strong> The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $41,484.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1448300FTC Requests Public Comment on an Application from Praxair and Linde to Approve Sale of Industrial Gases Assets to Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve-0
<p>The Federal Trade Commission is currently accepting public comments on an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/matheson_petition_public_12-21-18.pdf">application from Praxair, Inc. and Linde AG to divest hydrogen facilities and other assets</a> to Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. The divestiture is required by the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-international-industrial-gas-suppliers-praxair-inc">FTC’s Oct. 22, 2018, proposed order</a> requiring Praxair and Linde to divest certain industrial gases assets to settle charges that their $80 billion merger would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>The FTC order required the companies to divest four sets of assets in a manner approved by the Commission to four different acquirers to resolve competitive concerns in nine industrial gases product markets in numerous geographic markets in the United States. The application proposes that Matheson will acquire from Praxair and Linde five hydrogen facilities outside the Gulf Coast region, a hydrogen pipeline in the Gulf Coast region, intellectual property, customer contracts, and other assets.</p><p>The Commission will decide whether to approve the application after a 30-day public comment period, which expires on Jan. 22, 2019. <a href="https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/mathesondivest">Comments can be filed electronically</a> or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice. (FTC File No. 171 0068; the staff contact is Eric Rohlck, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2681.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1440725FTC Imposes Conditions in Joint Venture among Three Producers of PET Resinhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-imposes-conditions-joint-venture-among-three-producers-pet
<p><strong>Proposed order requires passive holdings and independent operation of under-construction PET production facility</strong></p>
<p>Three PET resin producers have agreed to restructure their transaction and to accept certain other conditions to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/181_0030_pet_agreement_12-21-18.pdf">settle Federal Trade Commission charges</a> that their proposed $1.1 billion joint acquisition out of bankruptcy of an under-construction PET production facility would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>Polyethylene terephthalate resin, or PET, is a plastic polymer used primarily to make bottles and packaging for food and other products. The PET production facility has remained unfinished since its original manufacturer, M&amp;G Chemicals S.A., filed for bankruptcy in 2017. Mexican company Alpek S.A.B de C.V., known as DAK, Thailand company Indorama Ventures Plc, and Taiwanese company Far Eastern New Century, or FENC, formed a joint venture company, Corpus Christi Polymers LLC, or CCP, to bid for M&amp;G’s PET production facility out of the bankruptcy process. In March 2018, the bankruptcy court approved the sale to the three-way joint venture, which intends to complete construction of the PET production facility.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/181_0030_pet_complaint_12-21-18.pdf">FTC’s complaint, without a remedy, the proposed acquisition likely would substantially lessen competition</a> in the highly concentrated market for PET resin products in North America. The terms of the proposed consent order seek to prevent DAK, Indorama, and FENC from using their joint ownership of the assets to act alone or in concert to exercise market power, or to transmit competitively sensitive information beyond what is necessary to accomplish the legitimate purposes of the joint venture.</p><p>When construction is finished, the Corpus Christi plant will produce not only PET, but also purified terephthalic acid, or PTA, a key input for PET production. Completion of this more efficient facility will significantly expand PET and PTA capacity and output in North America, benefiting consumers.</p><p>“The Commission’s order removes uncertainty about the future of the plant while mitigating the competitive risk created by its sale to the joint venture,” said Bruce Hoffman, Director of the Bureau of Competition. “This remedy ensures necessary support and funding for timely completion of what will be the country’s lowest-cost PET plant.”</p><p>Further details about the consent agreement, which allows the Commission to appoint a monitor, are set forth in the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/181_0030_pet_analysis_12-21-18.pdf">analysis to aid public comment</a> for this matter.</p><p>The Commission vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent order for public comment was 5-0. The FTC will publish the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through Jan. 22, 2019, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. <a href="https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/dakindoramaconsent">Comments can be filed electronically</a> or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.</p><p><strong>NOTE:</strong> The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $41,484.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1440689FTC Announces the Tenth Session of its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-announces-tenth-session-its-hearings-competition-consumer
<p><strong>ALERT: This Hearing scheduled for January 16 was cancelled due to the Government shutdown, and rescheduled to March 20, 2019.</strong></p><p>The Federal Trade Commission today announced the tenth session of its <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy/hearings-competition-consumer-protection">Hearings Initiative</a>.</em> The session, focused on competition and consumer protection issues in broadband markets, will take place on January 16, 2019, at the FTC’s Constitution Center Auditorium.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/ftc-hearing-10-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">hearing will examine developments in U.S. broadband markets, technology, and law</a> since the FTC staff’s 2007 <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/broadband-connectivity-competition-policy/v070000report.pdf">Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy</a></em> report and the FTC staff’s 1996 <em><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/anticipating-21st-century-competition-policy-new-high-tech-global-marketplace/gc_v1.pdf">Competition Policy in the New High-Tech, Global Marketplace</a></em> report. Participants in the hearing will discuss: (i) the evolution of broadband networking and broadband markets since the <em>2007 Broadband Report</em>; (ii) the identification and evaluation of advertising claims by internet service providers with respect to the delivery speed of content; and (iii) the identification and evaluation of conduct by broadband market participants that may be exclusionary or anticompetitive. The Commission will release a detailed agenda in January 2019.</p><p>The Commission invites public comment on these issues, including the questions listed below. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FTC-2018-0113">Comments can be submitted online</a> no later than 11:59 pm EDT, May 31, 2019.</p><ul><li>The FTC’s <em>2007 Broadband Report</em> provided a technical background of broadband market issues relevant at that time. How should the Commission evaluate broadband technology issues now? Which technological developments are important for understanding the competitiveness of the industry? How would future technological developments likely to occur in the near future impact the competitiveness of broadband markets, or otherwise affect consumer interests? </li><li>How should the Commission define relevant markets in this industry? How should the Commission identify and measure market power of content providers, content delivery networks, internet transit providers, internet service providers, and other relevant market actors?</li><li>How should the Commission identify and evaluate conduct in this industry that may be exclusionary or anticompetitive, including but not limited to discounting and preferential pricing, contracts and agreements between firms in vertical relationships, and conduct that may undermine or discriminate against rivals? Under what conditions does such conduct harm consumers? Under what conditions is conduct that may exclude or discriminate against rivals also associated with short-run or long-run efficiencies or consumer benefits? </li><li>Do existing local, state or federal regulations affect different market participants in ways that limit competition and innovation?</li><li>What are the existing standards, if any, regarding how actual internet speeds correspond to advertised internet speeds? Are such standards relevant to an FTC analysis under Section 5?</li><li>What tools, platforms, and research are used to measure the speed of broadband and related services? Are they adequate for the FTC’s analysis of speed claims? If not, what additional resources are needed? Do competitors rely on data from these sources in challenging each other’s speed claims? </li><li>How can consumers or other stakeholders determine whether actual internet speeds match advertised speeds?</li><li>Do existing methods of advertising internet speed adequately inform consumers about their choices for broadband and telecommunications services?</li></ul><p>Additional sessions of the FTC’s <em>Hearings Initiative</em> will be held in the first quarter of 2019. One additional hearing has been announced:</p><p><strong>February 12-13, 2018</strong><br />FTC Constitution Center Auditorium</p><ul><li>Privacy</li></ul><p>The FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century will accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Request for accommodations should be submitted to <em>Elizabeth Kraszewski via email at </em><a href="mailto:ekraszewski@ftc.gov">ekraszewski@ftc.gov</a><em> or by phone at (202) 326-3087</em>. Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. Please allow at least five days advance notice for accommodation requests; last minute requests will be accepted but may not be possible to accommodate.</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/policy">develops policy initiatives</a> on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs">blogs</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:00 -0400rgiura1440677FTC Requests Public Comment on an Application from Praxair and Linde to Approve Sale of an Industrial Gases Plant to LyondellBasellhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve-1
<p>The Federal Trade Commission is currently accepting public comments on an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/lyondell_petition_public_12-21-18.pdf">application from industrial gas suppliers Praxair, Inc. and Linde AG to divest</a> a hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas plant to LyondellBasell Industries N.V. The divestiture of the plant is required under the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-international-industrial-gas-suppliers-praxair-inc">FTC’s October 22, 2018 proposed order</a>, which requires Praxair and Linde to divest certain industrial gases assets to settle charges that the $80 billion merger of Praxair and Linde would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>The application proposes that LyondellBasell will acquire Linde’s hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide gas plant in La Porte, Texas. The Commission will decide whether to approve the application after a 30-day public comment period, which expires on Jan. 22, 2019. Comments on the application <a href="https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/lyondelldivest">can be filed electronically</a>, or sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington. (FTC File No. 171 0068. The staff contact is Eric Rohlck, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2681.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1440737FTC Requests Public Comment on an Application from Praxair and Linde to Approve Sale of Industrial Gases Assets to a Messer Group GmbH/CVC Capital Partners Joint Venturehttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-requests-public-comment-application-praxair-linde-approve
<p>The Federal Trade Commission is currently accepting public comments on an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/18-11-09petitionpublic.pdf">application from Praxair, Inc. and Linde AG</a> to divest industrial gases assets to a joint venture between Messer Group GmbH and CVC Capital Partners. Messer will maintain majority control of the joint venture. The divestiture of the assets is required under the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/ftc-requires-international-industrial-gas-suppliers-praxair-inc">FTC’s Oct. 22, 2018, proposed order</a> requiring Praxair and Linde to divest certain industrial gases assets to settle charges that their $80 billion merger would violate federal antitrust law.</p><p>The application proposes that the Messer/CVC joint venture will acquire from Praxair and Linde facilities that produce bulk liquid oxygen, nitrogen, and argon, bulk liquid carbon dioxide, bulk refined helium, excimer laser gases, and bulk liquid hydrogen. The Commission will decide whether to approve the application after a 30-day public comment period, which expires on Jan. 21, 2019. <a href="https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/messergroupdivest">Comments can be filed electronically</a> or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice. (FTC File No. 171 0068; the staff contact is Eric Rohlck, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2681.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1440329FTC Approves Teva Petition to Reopen and Modify Decision and Order in Case Involving Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Acquisition of Actavis Inc.https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/ftc-approves-teva-petition-reopen-modify-decision-order-case
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has approved an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/10/teva-petitions-ftc-reopen-modify-decision-order-case-involving">application by Teva</a> to reopen and modify its decision and order in connection with the 2012 <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/12/ftc-approves-final-order-settling-charges-watson-pharmaceuticals">merger of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Actavis Inc.</a></p><p>The Commission had alleged that the merger might lessen <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2012/10/121015watsonactavisanal.pdf">future competition for a number of generic drugs</a>, including the generic version of the abuse-resistant opioid painkiller sold under the brand name Embeda. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2012/12/121214watsonactavisdo.pdf">2012 decision and order</a> required Watson and Actavis to supply Embeda to Pfizer Inc. for a period not to exceed four years after Pfizer’s relaunch of Embeda, which occurred in January 2015. The decision and order also required Watson and Actavis to assist in the transfer of technology for manufacturing Embeda to Pfizer or a third party. In 2016, Teva acquired Actavis’s rights and obligations under the Embeda supply agreement.</p><p>Teva seeks to extend, at Pfizer’s request, the Embeda supply agreement for an additional period because Pfizer has not yet completed the technology transfer for Embeda manufacturing to a third party. Without Teva’s supply of Embeda, Pfizer will be unable to supply patients with Embeda after December 2018.</p><p>The Commission vote to approve the application was 4-0-1, with Commissioner Christine S. Wilson recused. (FTC File No. 1210132; the staff contact is Elizabeth Piotrowski, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2623.)</p><p>The Federal Trade Commission works to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-competition">promote competition</a>, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/competition-counts/pdf-0116_competition-counts.pdf">how competition benefits consumers</a> or <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/faq/competition/report-antitrust-violation">file an antitrust complaint</a>. Like the FTC on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/federaltradecommission">Facebook</a>, follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/FTC">Twitter</a>, read our <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters">blogs</a>, and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/stay-connected">subscribe to press releases</a> for the latest FTC news and resources.</p>Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:00:00 -0400jwolf1435049Administrative Law Judge Upholds FTC’s Complaint Allegations that Merger of Major Titanium Dioxide Companies would have Harmed Competitionhttps://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/12/administrative-law-judge-upholds-ftcs-complaint-allegations
<p>In an <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/docket_9377_tronox_et_al_initial_decision_redacted_public_version.pdf">Initial Decision announced today, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell upheld allegations</a> in a Federal Trade Commission complaint challenging the merger of Tronox Limited and Cristal, two top suppliers of chloride process titanium dioxide (“TiO2”), a white pigment used in a wide variety of products, including paint, industrial coatings, plastic, and paper.</p><p>“The evidence proves that the planned Acquisition may substantially lessen competition in the relevant market for the sale of chloride TiO2 in North America in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act,” Judge Chappell wrote in the decision. He concluded that the planned Acquisition would create a highly concentrated market and increase the likelihood of coordinated conduct among the remaining firms.</p><p>“Respondents have failed to rebut this proof, including by failing to demonstrate that entry or expansion would be timely, likely, and sufficient to counteract the likely anticompetitive effects of the Acquisition, or to demonstrate cognizable synergies or efficiencies that might justify the likely anticompetitive effects of the Acquisition,” Judge Chappell wrote.</p><p>An order Judge Chappell included with the Dec. 7, 2018 Initial Decision would require the respondents to terminate the Proposed Acquisition Agreement and cease taking any direct or indirect actions to consummate it; to return all confidential information to each other; and to certify final compliance within 15 days of the order becoming final.</p><p>According to the FTC’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/docket_no_9377_tronox_cristal_part_3_administrative_complaint_redacted_public_version_12072017.pdf">Administrative Complaint, Tronox Limited’s proposed acquisition of competitor Cristal</a>, for $1.67 billion and a 24 percent stake in the combined entity, would violate the antitrust laws by significantly reducing competition in the North American market (comprised of the United States and Canada) for chloride process titanium dioxide. The FTC alleged that the acquisition, if consummated, would increase the risk of coordinated action among the remaining competitors, and increase the risk of future anticompetitive output reductions by Tronox.</p><p>The Appeals Process. Because the Federal Trade Commission has sought preliminary relief to prevent consummation of the proposed acquisition in federal court, <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9ed61019c00f9d56de87772f765f49f2&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se16.1.3_152&amp;rgn=div8">Commission Rule 3.52(a)</a> provides that the Judge’s Initial Decision is subject to automatic review by the full Commission. On September 12, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/tronox_pi_opinion_redacted.pdf">Memorandum Opinion</a> and Order granting the Commission’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction.</p>Mon, 17 Dec 2018 08:00:00 -0400rcuster1434857